It would appear that the predictions were right, the Republicans are on track to win the House and are looking to make gains in the Senate although as of now there has only been a one seat change. Republicans winning the house means that John Boehner of Ohio will become the House majority speaker. Right now Republicans have gained a governor but according to the current results there is a very high chance that they will win more.
Looking at it from a political point of view the Republicans came into power at a very good time as in the next four years it's likely the economy will recover or at least get better which Republicans will be able to claim is there doing. Also this represents a shift in American politics meaning we could see the conservative ramifications of this for years.
Regular health insurance doesn't work because the only way they CAN make a profit is by covering people who do not have pre existing conditions.
I don't care, literally I couldn't care less what benefits the insurance company when peoples lives are at stake. If a corporation or industry that offers service doesn't actually serve then it has no place.
and everyone has to pay.
So, slash the military budget.
I can link you to videos that have Canadians who do not support NHC.
And I could link you to citizens of countries with NHC that support it.
Not really.
Er yeah, really. The more doctors and hospitals we have to serve the citizens the less wait time we have, it's common sense.
Furthermore Canada spends less money on healthcare, yet we are able to treat everyone.
Treat everyone still alive by the end of the wait at least...
Yes waits are a problem, but isn't it better to wait 3 months than to be denied by a private system?
Not everyone is denied by their private systems. You're kind of giving those people the middle finger. I mean, isn't it better to wait 3 or 4 days than to wait 3 months?
Personally, I would like to see more people give HSAs a shot. You need to be responsible if you're going to have one, but we can't always be there to help those who are irresponsible.
This still leaves the poor out Since they don't have money to put into the system in the first place. Really such a system is about as good as having nothing at all.
Not everyone is denied by their private systems. You're kind of giving those people the middle finger. I mean, isn't it better to wait 3 or 4 days than to wait 3 months?
Then have both system in play. You can afford a private system without being turned down you get it in 3 days. You can't you get it in months rather then never if the government system can't work faster.
I don't care, literally I couldn't care less what benefits the insurance company when peoples lives are at stake. If a corporation or industry that offers service doesn't actually serve then it has no place.
Private companies can't serve without making a profit. A second grader knows that. Of course, having the government take over only means more debt (because they can't go out of business). This means we pay more.
So, slash the military budget.
If we get out of war, we can do this. Otherwise, we still need protection. Regardless, slashing the military budget wouldn't really help. It would be a temporary fix at best and it wouldn't solve the whole waiting problem.
Er yeah, really. The more doctors and hospitals we have to serve the citizens the less wait time we have, it's common sense.
So even more money? I'm sorry, but what percentage of your pay check do you wish to lose?
This still leaves the poor out Since they don't have money to put into the system in the first place. Really such a system is about as good as having nothing at all.
I don't want to pay for poor people. If they can't pay for themselves, someone else can pay for them. Just don't force me to pay. I'm a heartless ******* like that, but I'm already poor myself (but I'm not on welfare so I'm not poor enough). People need to take responsibility. If they don't they have to suffer the consequences.
I'm a heartless mo focker, I know. There's no need to pull the pity card out anymore.
Private companies can't serve without making a profit. A second grader knows that.
Right, and even a second grader understand that letting people die because they were sick before is wrong.
If we get out of war, we can do this. Otherwise, we still need protection.
Of course but I would feel quite protected with a few billion taken away from the military to help fund healthcare.
So even more money?
Yep.
I'm sorry, but what percentage of your pay check do you wish to lose?
As much as it takes to insure that the citizens of this 1st world country receive 1st world quality healthcare. I've always thought it funny how much Americans complain about taxes when we have one of the lower income tax rates in the developed world. Also the money would go towards funding scientific research and education as well which clearly isn't a bad thing
It would be a temporary fix at best and it wouldn't solve the whole waiting problem.
This "we need to do everything in our power to help the sick" mentallity ignores the happiness of the healthy. Seriously, we need to focus on more than just the sick and the poor. What about the middle class? Oh wait, they aren't important.
Yes let's just use the systems the GOP proposes and just eliminate that class all together.
Yes let's just use the systems the GOP proposes and just eliminate that class all together.
Let's just use the system dogs suggest and wipe out all bananas.
Sorry, but what you said is just ridiculous.
As much as it takes to insure that the citizens of this 1st world country receive 1st world quality healthcare.
As much as it takes? What if that means lowering our quality of living by a substantial amount? What if that means allowing Europe to become the new world power? As much as it takes can even mean "If we must resort to a complete communist state, then be it."
Does the sentence I quoted seriously not raise any eyebrows? Does nothing hold value compared to helping others? Sure, nothing is worth more than a human life, blah blah. But, is it worth going into more debt?
Why are people pissed at Republicans? Because Bush took this economy and pushed it downhill. Let's say we go uphill before NHC takes place. Is it worth ruining the economy to help people? People are complaining about how Bush screwed the economy, but now everyone wants NHC to happen so we can save people no matter what the cost.
IF someone is rich and they don't want to spend money on a sick person, they shouldn't be forced to unless they made that person sick in the first place. It's their money, they should have a choice. The freedom to not give a **** is one of the greatest freedoms we should be grateful to have.
What about the middle class? Just because you're middle class doesn't mean you can afford healthcare nor does it mean you won't have children with conditions that cause them to not be covered by insurance. The healthy should help the sick so that when the healthy become sick they've set an example of what should be done for them.
I'm a heartless mo focker, I know. There's no need to pull the pity card out anymore.
Don't need to, that just show why we shouldn't have such a system. This is a government that is suppose to be for the people. Not big business, not the upper 10%, the PEOPLE, ALL OF THEM, whether they be poor, stable, well off, or rich. As such a system should be implemented that caters to everyone.
If such an attitude does represent conservatism on average then this just confirms my suspicions on which party is the more corrupt.
IF someone is rich and they don't want to spend money on a sick person, they shouldn't be forced to unless they made that person sick in the first place.
Who paid them the money that made them rich? Oh, the lower and middle classes.
What if that means lowering our quality of living by a substantial amount? What if that means allowing Europe to become the new world power? As much as it takes can even mean "If we must resort to a complete communist state, then be it."
Lowering our quality of living? Er, you do realize that generally higher income tax rates correlate with higher levels of happiness and standards of living. I don't care if the continent of Europe joins together to become the new super power, hell why does it even matter? Also, as other countries have NHC that aren't communist we clearly wouldn't have to get even close.
The healthy should help the sick so that when the healthy become sick they've set an example of what should be done for them.
Shouldn't we, you know, have a say in if we want to do this or not? I mean, we should be allowed to smoke if we want, that is something that harms ourselves. We should, therefore, be allowed to not pay into NHC and let ourselves get screwed over if we want. We should choose what is in our best interest, not the government.
Don't need to, that just show why we shouldn't have such a system. This is a government that is suppose to be for the people. Not big business, not the upper 10%, the PEOPLE, ALL OF THEM, whether they be poor, stable, well off, or rich.
But the government doesn't control health care so it isn't their respon... oh, I see what you did there.
The government is for the people. The government lets people have their rights and protects the people from invading countries. That's what 'for the people' means.
If such an attitude does represent conservatism on average then this just confirms my suspicions on which party is the more corrupt.
I'm a libertarian who believes freedom is more important than authoritarianism, even if such if for a good cause. I understand that policies used to help people, often hurt them. One of the best ways to combat bad policies is to allow people to help each other at their OWN whim. If you don't want to help, fine. If you do, great!
Again, this country's economy is going downhill. How will it get any better if we adopt NHC? Maybe NHC is more important and we should allow the economy to collapse? I mean, you can't put a price on human lives, we should even allow the economy to collapse before we allow someone to get sick.
Who paid them the money that made them rich? Oh, the lower and middle classes.
If the rich gave them a product or service in return of that money, they are even and owe the middle and lower class nothing. That's sort of how currency works.
If I give you a TV, and you give me 500 dollars, and you too poor to afford health care. Why do I all of a sudden owe you a portion of the money you payed me? I agreed to give you the TV, and now you're trying to take your money back?
